Date of filing : 23-01-2012
Date of order : 25-07-2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.21/2012
Dated this, the 25th day of July 2016
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
K.Sathyan, S/o.K.A.Karunakaran, : Complainant
R/at Periyath-Kundamkuzhy,
Kundamkuzhy.Po, Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
(Adv.E.Sukumaran, Hosdurg)
1. The District officer, : Opposite party
Ground Water Department, Civil Station,
Vidyanagar.Po, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Addl.Govt. Pleader)
2 K.A.Muhammad, Working as District Officer,
Ground Water Department, Civil Station,
Vidyanagar.Po, Kasaragod.Dt.
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The complainant is a farmer and cultivated various types of plants. In order to irrigate the land, well water was not sufficient and decided to dig a bore well and approached the opposite party and dig a bore well and approached the opposite party and filed an application on 25-04-2011, marked the land which is technically feasible for well and issued a letter stating that the charges for digging the well, and when the complainant approached the opposite party for remitting it, the opposite party was not ready to accept the money, later after making a complaint to the District Collector, the opposite party received the amount from the complainant had been awaiting the opposite party to dig the well, but until the complaint is filed the opposite party failed to dig the well and due to the deficiency in service from the opposite party, the cultivated crops of the complainant were drooped and on the verge of dry. Hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party opposite party No.1 stated that it is true that the complainant had applied for ground water in his property but there was no deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. Opposite party No.1 contended that at the time of depositing the amount by the complainant there was four other applications pending in which the amount was already remitted. Moreover there was order from the director of opposite party for drilling at different drought affected areas of Wynad and Kozhikode District under draught scheme. The rig is shifted to Kozhikode District as per the order of the Director in the Month of December itself and after its work in Kozhikode it was shifted to Wynad. On 12-12-2011 the complainant has executed a bond to the effect that he will not claim any interest or compensation in case of the execution of the work and other statement of exam are delayed due to administrative or technical reason. They further submitted that the rig is allotted mainly to implement the Government work and so preference has to be given to government work and hence there is no latches on their part.
3. Opposite party No.2 who was subsequently arrayed as the opposite party filed version stating that at the time of the formalities for digging the well i.e. after getting the feasibility letter and request for remitting the amount the complainant did not turn out even after repeated requests. At that time there were four other applications were pending for consideration and moreover, there was an order from the Director of Ground Water Department for drilling bore well in draught affected areas of other districts the work in the other districts are entrusted to Kasaragod District since the rig in those stations were not having mud work facility. As per the priority list the bore well works of the private party was due on 23-5-2012 and apart from that there were some hindrance of such as pillers or portion of compound wall which obstructs from entering the rig into the plot of the complainant and the complainant was not ready to remove the same as directed by the opposite party. The complainant was not at all making any arrangements or corporation to enter the rig in his plot and there is no provision to the department for demolishing or reconstructing the structure which ware obstruction to entering the rig to the plot. Therefore he is not liable for the delay in digging the bore well for any reason. He is not liable for loss if any caused to the complainant.
4 The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and
Exts A1 to A10 series were marked on his side. The expert commissioner also examined before the Forum and his report is marked as Ext.C1. On the side of opposite party, no oral evidence adduced. Exts B1 to B11 were marked. The documents were perused carefully and evidence were analyzed by the Forum. Heard the arguments advanced by both sides.
5. The following points arose for consideration?
- Is there any delay in digging the bore well and thereby caused any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief and cost
6. Point No.1 : As per IA. 63/13 the Forum directed the opposite party to dig the bore well on 5-2-2013 and opposite party has complied the direction of the Forum also. Therefore now the material question to be decided in this case is whether there is any delay in digging the well. According to PW1, the opposite party deliberately delayed the payment of digging fee from PW1 by not accepting the amount. In cross-examination he deposed that in page No.3 that the delay of payment is the opposite party was not ready to receive the amount against that he lodged a complaint before the District Collector, Kasaragod. Therefore it is the reason for the delay was deliberate negligence on the part of the opposite party was proved by the complainant, herein. PW1’s specific case was that due to the non availability of water he sustained great loss of crops and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.61,320/- as per Ext.C1. The opposite party has not filed any objection to expert report and while the expert was cross examined before the Forum, he had categorically stated that the crops were cooped and dried not due to any disease, but due to the scarcity of water and further opined that there is water scarcity in the particular area where the PW1 cultivated crop. He made this observation out of his long standing experience for 30 years being a retired agricultural officer.
7. The opposite party has put forwarded a contention that there is no sufficient space to entre the digging machine to the property of PW1. But it is highly pertinent to note that as per the documents before the Forum, the opposite party completed the digging of bore well on 6-2-2013 without any difficulty or hindrance such as by demolishing any compound wall or both the pillers in the entrance gate. Hence it is crystal clear that the contentions taken by the opposite party before digging the well is that the vehicle could not entre the compound without demolishing the compound wall is baseless and absolutely false. Ext.A10 series are the photographs which were taken at the time of digging the bore well which shows the compound wall, entrance gate to the compound and the bore well vehicle was parking inside the compound wall without demolishing any compound wall as alleged by the opposite party.
8. Another contention put forward by the opposite party for the delay in digging was that the digging machine was not available since the machine was shifted to Wynad for government works. At the time of hearing the digging fee, the opposite party promised to dig the well with a week. Moreover the documents produced by the opposite party proves that at the time of receiving the amount from PW1 digging machine was very well available in Kasaragod. At the time of remitting the amount on 12-12-2011 no application for digging well from private parties were pending. PW1 was the 22nd applicant, all the applications for digging bore well were completed on 1/12/2011 and all the applicants who remitted the amount were given the days of digging the bore well as not done. At this juncture it is absolutely necessary to peruse the Ext.B1. A mere perusal of the Ext.B1 proves that Ext.B1 was created for the purpose of the case and it was not maintaining in the ordinary course of day to day itself. It is clear from the perusal of documents produced by the opposite party that the digging vehicle was available in Kasaragod till 29-12-2011. During that period the opposite party could have very well dig the bore well as convinced the opposite party about the shortage of water to irrigate the bananas and other crops. Therefore the above contentions also will not sustainable. With regard to the another contention of the opposite party that while remitting the amount, the complainant executed a bond to the opposite party that he will not claim any interest or compensation in case of execution of work and the settlement of accounts were delayed due to the administrative reason and that document is marked as Ext.B10 subject to proof. The complainant’s case is that while remitting the amount the opposite party obtained 2 blank signed stamp paper and subsequently the opposite party fabricated as a bond for the purpose of the case. On Perusal of Ext.B10 it is seen that there is vacant space between the signature and the type written words in both the stamp papers. If it is signed after the words were typed there would not be any vacant space between the signature and the type within letters. Hence it is clear that Ext.B10 was falsely fabricated for the purpose of filling the lacuna.
9. By considering all these aspects it is clear that there is gross deficiency in service from the side of opposite party for sustaining damages to the complainant. Ist point found in favour of the complainant. Since the first point already found in favour of the complainant he is entitled for a necessary relief from us for the loss caused him due to the deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with a cost of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Photocopy of Document(Jenmmadharam)
A2. Receipt for land tax
A3.4-5-12 Receipt for land tax
A4. 17-6-2011 letter issued by District officer, Ground Water to Complainant.
A5. 28-6-11 letter issued by Dist. Officer, Ground Water to complainant
A6 12-12-2011. TR5 for an amount of Rs.22,250/-
A7.Member No.31918 pass book issued by Hosudrg Primary Co-op Agricultural Bank, Hosdurg
A8. Pass book of the complainant issued by NMG Bank, Periya Bazar
A9. Photograph
A10 Photographs
B1. Copy of particulars of work.
B2.19-3-11 Copy of letter sent by Director,GW Trivandrum to Dist.Officer, GW, Kasaragod
B3. 1-6-11 Copy of letter sent by Director, GW Trivandrum to Dist.Officer, GW, Kasaragod.
B4. 21-6-11 Copy of letter sent by Director, GW Trivandrum to Dist.Officer, GW, Kasaragod.
B5. 20-7-2011 copy of letter sent by Director, GW Trivandrum to District Officer, GW, Kasaragod.
B6. 27-7-2011 Copy of letter sent by Director, G.W Trivandrum to Dist.Officer, G.W . Kasaragod.
B7.6-8-11 letter sent by Dist.Officer, Wynad to Director, Ground water, Trivandrum.
B8. 9-8-11 Letter sent by Dist.Officer Ground water Kasaragod to Director, Ground water, Trivandrum.
B9. 28-11-2011 Copy of letter sent by Director of Ground Water to Dist Officer, Ground water, Kasaragod.
B10. 12-12-2011 Copy of under taking.
B11.C1.4895/10 Proceedings of the Dist.Collector dt.3-12-2011
C1. Commission Report submitted by P.Balakrishnan.
PW1. K.Sathyan.
Witness: Balakrishnan .P.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
